CHAPTER 2 TASK FORCE GOALS & INDICATORS

Drawing on
its findings, the Energy and Transportation Task Force developed three
strategic goals that were used to craft the policy recommendations discussed in
the next chapter. The first goal deals with sustainable economic growth as a
whole; the second with sustainable energy, and the third with sustainable
transportation.

The following presentations of each goal gives the rational
behind it, and offers an analytical context for the indicators. The numerical
values included in the indicators, are targets to strive for, not mandates to
achieve irrespective of cost. The analytical context for the indicators
generally shows historical trends and recent forecasts to give a sense of how
much of a "stretch" it would take to reach these levels. The Task Force did
not, however, conduct a rigorous analysis of technological or economic
feasibility and a consensus on indicator levels was not reached.

It is important to note that the
indicators of progress under each goal are interrelated. In most cases they are
complementary and reinforcing; for example, the transportation and fossil
electric generation measure would contribute significantly to the aggregate
energy efficiency measure. Even though the attainment of several measures may
make others redundant, each measure has a distinct rationale that is worth
preserving. Moreover, it is possible that attaining some measures may increase
the difficulty of achieving others, for example increasing the share of
renewable energy may be more difficult when increased energy efficiency dampens
the demand for new power generation, and vehicle efficiency improvements can
reduce driving costs and possibly lead to increased vehicle miles traveled.

Goal 1

Indicators of Progress

SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH Pursue
economic, environmental, and social policies that encourage global
competitiveness and a long-term economic growth rate of at least 2.5 percent
per year. Environmental improvements must be realized while providing
opportunities and income gains that are distributed broadly throughout society
and contribute to reducing poverty and inequity.

The Energy and Transportation Task Force did
not develop indicators for this goal beyond a 2.5 percent annual increase in
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) recognizing the Council as a whole would best
supply indicators for the other aspects of the goal.

Rationale

Long-term economic growth will enable the nation
to achieve important social, environ-nental, and economic objectives.

Growth can provide jobs and other opportunities to reduce
poverty and strengthen the social fabric of American communities.

Growth can help preserve a full range of economic
opportunities for future generations of Americans entering the work force.

Growth can provide the basis for environmental improvement,
offering incentives and capital for technological progress that improves
efficiency and reduces materials use.

Growth is a critical element in creating the societal capital
necessary to make investments in the health and productivity of ecosystems.

Context: Economic Growth

Historical Data

Annual growth in real GDP ranged
from -2.2 percent to 6.2 percent during the years 1986-1994. Over the 14-year
period the average annual growth rate was 2.5 percent. Since World War 11
average annual growth rates were highest during the decade of the 1960s (3.8
percent) and lowest over the first four years of the 1990s (1.5
percent).12

Table 1 ECONOMIC GROWTH FORECASTS

SOURCE

YEARS

FORECAST

Annual Energy Outlook 1995

1990-2010

1.8-2.7%

Council of Economic Advisors

1990-1999

2.4%

Data Resources Inc.

1993-2010

1.7-2.8%

WEFA

1993-2010

2.0-2.9%

Source:Annual Energy Outlook
1995, p. 6.

Goal 2

Indicators of Progress

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY Improve the
economic and environmental performance of U.S. energy supply and use, while
ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable energy services and
increasing the competitiveness of American business

Energy Efficiency: Reduce average energy
consumed per dollar of economic development from 1990 levels by 10 percent by
2000, 30 percent by 2010, and 50 percent by 2025 (primary energy per unit of
real Gross Domestic Product (GDP).13

Renewable Energy: Increase the share of
renewable energy in the U.S. energy supply from the 1990 level of 7.4 percent
to 12 percent in 2010 and 25 percent in 2025.14

Efficient Electricity: Increase average
efficiency of electricity generated from fossil fuels to 40 percent by 2010 and
50 percent by 2025.15

Rationale

The energy intensity of the economy (energy
consumed per dollar GDP) is a fundamental measure of sustainability that
combines both technological efficiency (energy consumed per unit of goods and
services provided) and the weighted mix of energy-using activities that make up
the national economy.

Despite the progress made in the past 25 years and the
potential contributions of laws enacted but not yet fully implemented, many
existing patterns of energy production and consumption deplete natural
resources, degrade ecosystems, and create significant amounts of solid waste,
water pollution, and atmospheric pollution.

Energy efficiency and waste generation are linked. Pollution
and waste are inefficiencies. More efficient industrial processes and
technologies will increase productivity and produce less waste and pollution.

Cost-effective approaches to increase end-use efficiencies
will have benefits in all three dimensions of sustainability:

Renewable energy sources generally have fewer environmental
impacts than do fossil fuels and have important potential use domestically and
overseas. Costs have declined significantly for renewable energy technologies
in the past 15 years.16 When
reduced costs are combined with generally lower environmental impacts many
renewable energy technologies are now competitive in niche markets in this
country.

Context: Energy Efficiency

Reduce average energy consumed per dollar of economic
development from 1990 levels by 10 percent by 2000, 30 percent by 2010, and 50
percent by 2025 (primary energy per unit of real Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The energy intensity of the economy (energy consumed per dollar
of GDP) is a fundamental measure of sustainability that combines both
technological efficiency (energy consumed per unit of service provided) and the
mix of energy-using activities that make up the national economy. Both of these
components tend to reduce energy intensity as the economy evolves.

Historical Data

Primary energy use per dollar of
real GDP fell by 19 percent from 1980 to 1993; and by two percent between 1990
and 1993.17 Over the period from
1980-1993, energy use rose 18 percent in the residential and commercial sector;
one percent in the industrial sector; 16 percent in the transportation sector,
and 11 percent overall. Real GDP rose 36 percent.18

Forecast

For 1990 to 2000, the Annual Energy
Outlook 1995 forecasts a 5.6-8.1 percent decline in primary energy use per
dollar of real GDP (see table 2). Energy use is predicted to rise 12-16 percent
in the residential and commercial sector; 17-22 percent in the industrial
sector; 13-17 percent in the transportation sector, and 14-19 percent overall.
Real GDP rises 21-29 percent. For 1990 to 2010, the Annual Energy Outlook
1995 forecasts a 13.9-18.6 percent decline in primary energy use per dollar
of real GDP Energy use is predicted to rise 17-27 percent in the residential
and commercial sector; 27-40 percent in the industrial sector; 23-33 percent in
the transportation sector and 22-33 percent overall. Real GDP rises 42-64
percent. For 1990 to 2010, Alternative Energy Future forecasts an
economy- wide decline of 30 percent in primary energy use per dollar of real
GNP; a 25 percent decline in energy use per household in the residential
sector; an 11 percent decline in energy use in the commercial sector per dollar
of real GNP (total); and a 25 percent decline in energy use per dollar of
industrial output, assuming adoption of their policy recommendations.

Table 2 ENERGY USE FORECASTS

SOURCE

YEAR

PRIMARY ENERGY

RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

TRANSPORT

OVERALL

REAL GDP

Annual Energy Outlook 1995

1990-2000

-5.6-8.1%

+12-16%

+17-22%

+13-17%

+14-19%

+21-29%

Annual Energy Outlook 1995

1990-2010

-13.9-18.6%

+17-27%

+27-40%

+23-33%

+22-33%

+42-64%

Alternative Energy Future*

1990-2010

-30%

-25% and -11%*

-25%

--

--

--

* Per dollar of real gross domestic
product. The Alternative Energy Future forecasts assume adoption of the
policies recommended in that report.

Although the Task Force's energy intensity indicator level
exceeds long-term historical rates by a significant amount, it is not without
precedent: the energy intensity of the economy fell by 2.0 percent per year
between 1974 and 1986, a time of rising real energy prices and new regulation
aimed at increasing energy efficiency.19 These indicator values are technically
feasible and could be economically beneficial if energy and transportation
policies, including research and development, are structured properly.

The 10 percent improvement from 1990 levels, for example, is at
the high end of base-case energy forecasts, which range from about 5.6-8.1
percent, depending on assumed rates of economic growth and short-term changes
in energy markets. (See table 2.)

The 30 percent improvement by 2010 is nearly identical to the
Energy Policy Act directive (30 percent improvement over 1988 levels) that
guides the development of the Department of Energy's Least Cost Energy Strategy
study.20 It is significantly
higher than baseline forecasts, which tend to be in the 15-20 percent range.
The base case forecast for America's Energy Choices yielded a 24 percent
improvement.21 Few energy forecasts extend to 2025. The 1991
National Energy Strategy projected that the economy would be 32-41 percent more
energy efficient in 2030 than in 1990, making the 2025 level of 50 percent
improvement in the energy/GDP ratio appear to be a significant stretch but
probably feasible.22

In addition to energy market forecasts, "bottom-up" technology
analysis conducted in the last decade shows that more widespread adoption of
existing energy efficiency technology could reduce energy demand by 25-45
percent--implying that a 50 percent aggregate reduction in the economy would be
possible through diffusion of improved technology and the shifting composition
of economic output to less energy-intensive products and services.23

Assuming a 2.5 percent average annual growth rate in the
economy between 1990 and 2025, over-all primary energy use would be slightly
higher than current levels by 2030 even if the efficiency indicator level is
achieved. If other measures of progress are reached--for example in renewable
energy and fossil generation efficiency--and if environmental technologies
continue to reduce many of the pollutants associated with conventional energy
supplies, then the overall environmental impact of this level of consumption
could be significantly less than today's. Assuming that technologies improve
and that rational policies are used to achieve the target, the economics could
be distinctly favorable on a nationwide basis.

Context: Renewable Energy

Increasing the share of renewable energy in the US. energy
supply from the 1990 level of 7.4 percent to 12 percent in 2010 and 25 percent
in 2025.

Renewable energy sources typically have fewer environmental
impacts than do fossil fuels and have significant domestic and international
market potential. Costs have declined significantly for renewable energy
technologies over the past 15 years. Continued cost reductions at historical
rates will encourage significant market penetration, and expanded markets will
encourage further cost reductions. These trends will enhance the affordability
of increasing the renewable energy share. However, barriers besides costs exist
and these may need to be addressed in order to attain the indicator level.
Because the share of hydropower is expected to remain constant, it is not
included in the indicator values.24

Historical Data

Renewable energy consumption,
including hydroelectric power, was 7.4% of total U.S. energy consumption in
1990. Hydroelectric power accounted for 3.7% of total US. primary energy
consumption in 1990.25

Forecasts

The Annual Energy Outlook 1995
forecasts renewable energy consumption, including hydroelectric power, will be
8.3 -8.8 percent of total U S. primary energy consumption by 20 1 0.
Hydroelectric power will account for 3.0 percent (high and low estimates the
same) of total US. primary energy consumption by 2010. Of the remaining 5.2-5.7
percent of total US. primary energy consumption coming from renewable energy,
1.6-2.0 percent will be used by electricity generating utilities and
non-utilities, 1.0 percent (high and low estimates the same) will be used by
cogenerators, and 2.8-2.9 percent will be used for non-electric renewable
energy consumption. Biomass and other wastes equal approximately one percent of
total US. primary energy consumption in both high and low estimates.16 Data
Resources Incorporated forecasts that 3 5 'gigawatts of 1993 generating plant
capacity will be retired by 2010 and 110 gigawatts by 2015.27

The Annual Energy Outlook 1995 baseline projections
suggest that the Task Force's target of 12 percent in 2010 and 25 percent in
2025 would require concerted policy efforts if they are to be achieved
cost-effectively. Interaction with the energy efficiency targets could work
either way: reduced energy consumption would increase the percentage
contribution of any given level of renewable energy, but slow growth in
electric generating capacity could also blunt the market for renewable
generating technologies.

Context: Efficient Electricity Generation

Increase average efficiency of electricity generated from
fossil fuels to 40 percent by 2010 and 50 percent by 2025.

Improvements in fossil energy technologies, including
transmission and distribution, will improve the efficiency of electricity
supply and reduce its environmental impact. Current average efficiency m
providing electricity (end-use electricity consumed divided by energy input,
including transmission and distribution losses) is 32 percent, which is assumed
to remain constant through 201 0 under current projections.28

Historical Data

Average generating efficiency of
utilities (BTUs per kilowatt hour generated divided by 3412) was 32 percent in
1980, 32.5 percent in 1990, and 33 percent in 1993.29 Transmission and distribution losses
for utilities currently equal around 10 percent of generated kilowatt hours of
electricity.30

Forecasts

The Annual Energy Outlook 1995
forecasts an average generating efficiency for utilities and non-utilities by
2010 of 33.1-33.3 percent. 31 The
Annual Energy Outlook 1995 forecasts 113-176 gigawatts in gross
additions to the electricity generating capability of utilities, nonutilities,
and cogenerators between 1990 and 2010. It also forecasts retirement of 60
gigawatts of generating capability from 1990 to 2010 (high and low forecasts
the same, all retirements occur in utilities). Total generating capability of
utilities, nonutilities, and cogenerators by 2010 is forecast to be 800-863
gigawatts.32

New electricity generation technology is already capable of
yielding much higher efficiencies than the current system average. For example,
thermal efficiencies in some new natural gas-direct combined-cycle units are
over 50 percent (not including transmission and distribution losses). (See
table 3.)

Table 3 AVERAGE EFFICIENCY OF ELECTRICITY
GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

Steam Turbine

Combined Cycle

Oil & Gas

Coal

Oil & Gas

Coal

Best available technology in 1993

35.5%

33.5%

45.1%

40.0%

Expected best available technology in 2002

N/A

42.0%

55.0%

50.0%

Source: U.S. Department of
Energy, Fossil Energy Office, Memorandum from FE-4 to PO-62, 27 February
1995.

The U.S. Department of Energy research and development goals
for coal-based technology are 55 percent thermal efficiency by 2010 while
keeping costs at or below current levels. This is based on gasification/fuel
cell technology. Higher overall efficiencies would be possible with maximum
waste-heat recovery in some applications--perhaps as high as 65 percent by
2025.

However, capital stock turnover is slow in the electricity
generation sector, and increased energy efficiency will further reduce new
capacity needs. The Task Force targets in this indicator assume a substantial
increase in both the efficiency of new units and a sharp acceleration of
projected replacement investment. Therefore, the levels of this indicator are a
significant stretch. For example, the 2010 target could be met if roughly 40
percent of capacity averaged about 55 percent efficiency while 60 percent of
capacity maintained the current average of 32 percent. But current projections
indicate that, without policy changes, almost all of existing capacity will
remain in operation in 2010 and that capacity installed between 1990 and 20 1 0
will not significantly increase the current average system efficiency. The year
2025 target could be met if three quarters of the capacity operated at 55
percent efficiency, assuming that the remainder operated at the current system
average of 32 percent. Again, projections of utility stock turnover raise
significant questions about the feasibility of this indicator level without a
significant policy effort.

Goal 3

Indicators of Progress

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION Improve
the economic and environmental performance of the U.S. transportation system
while increasing all Americans' access to meaningful jobs, services, and
recreation.

Many aspects of the transportation system are
defined and measurable. However, further work is needed on measures for some
important areas.

National and Economic Security: Steadily reduce
dependence and suburban areas.

Transportation Efficiency: Reduce average greenhouse
gas emissions per passenger-mile by [x]* percent and ton-mile by 20 percent by
201 0 and by 40 percent by 2025, while maintaining or enhancing the projected
downward trend in other pollutants.33

Reducing the Need to Travel with Increased Access:
Stabilize average vehicle miles traveled per capita at 1990 levels by 2010
while enhancing the desirability of alternatives to single occupancy
driving.34

Increasing Access: Improve the rural and urban
accessibility of jobs, markets, services, and recreation and thereby increasing
the share of trips made by alternatives to personal motor vehicles to 30
percent by 2025.35

* The Task Force members agreed to
defer to the significantly greater analytical resources available to the
Presidential Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Personal Motor
Vehicles. Although this group completed its work without issuing a consensus
final report, policymakers can refer to the advisory group's docket to review
the analytical work and discussion regarding the appropriate level for the
passenger-mile components of this indicator.

Rationale

Transportation systems spur economic and social
development by linking producers with suppliers and markets and by connecting
people to employment opportunities, goods, services and recreation.

Reducing petroleum imports would strengthen US. economic and
national security. Roughly two-thirds of the petroleum consumed in the United
States is used for transportation. Petroleum imports are rising and currently
account for 44 percent of U.S. consumption--a quarter of it from nations in the
politically unstable Persian Gulf region.36

Pollution is a symptom of inefficiencies. The development and
application of more efficient transportation technologies and more efficient
modes will reduce the economic and environmental costs of air emissions and
wasted fuel.

Better designed community transportation systems and
affordable alternatives can reduce the need for travel by single-occupancy
driving - the most inefficient means of traveling.

Convenient, affordable, reliable regional and public transit
will better enable people to reach employment opportunities, goods and
services, and recreation.

Context: National and Economic Security

Steadily reduce dependence on oil imports.

Because of reduced domestic exploration, dwindling reserves,
falling production, and the relatively high cost of U.S. production, oil
imports have grown from 37 percent of domestic consumption in 1987 to 44
percent in 1994. Motor vehicles account for approximately two-thirds of all
domestic oil consumption and are therefore the major force behind this rising
demand.38 In the short-term,
imports on balance help the economy through lower prices for fuels, reduced
inflation, a rise in real disposable income, and overall economic growth.
However, the immediate benefits of imported petroleum come with longer term
economic and national security costs as well.

According to the Department of Commerce, substantial reliance
on petroleum imports threatens to impair national security. Although U.S.
energy security has improved in recent years with the breakup of the Soviet
Union and the apparent disarray within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC), political and economic problems in the Persian Gulf region
make supply disruptions a possibility. Persian Gulf oil has risen to 21 percent
of domestic imports and the United States and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have limited options to offset
another major oil supply disruption because: (1) there is little surplus
production outside the Persian Gulf, (2) U.S. and OECD government oil stocks
provide less protection from an interruption than in the past; and, (3)
alternative fuels and electric vehicles would not be able to meet the sudden
increase in demand.39 During a
major oil supply disruption, there could be substantial hardships for the U.S.
economy--caused by inflation, unemployment, and income and productivity losses.
Since the post-World War II period, significant supply disruptions have
occurred 11 times, three times with major economic implications--the 1973 Arab
oil embargo, the Iranian Revolution (1978-80), and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
in 1990.40 To protect the Middle
East and access to oil, the U.S. maintains a significant and costly military
presence in the Persian Gulf.

Economic and national security risks can be expected to
increase as U.S. oil imports continue to grow because of declining domestic
production and increased economic growth. The Energy Information Administration
of the U.S. Department of Energy (EIA/DOE) projects that net imports will
increase to 51.5 percent of domestic consumption by 2000 and that the United
States and its allies will become increasingly dependent on Persian Gulf oil,
which will account for 55 percent of world exports by 2000.43

Historical Data

Net oil imports as a share of U.S.
petroleum products have been rising since 1985. The 1994 level of 45 percent is
near the historic high of 46.5 percent in 1977.42 Gross imports of crude oil surpassed
domestic production during several months of 1994.43 Since 1980, the value of oil imports
has fallen both as a share of the total value of imports and as a share of GDP,
reaching eight percent of all imports and less than one percent of GDP in
1994.44

Forecasts

As a result of both increasing demand and
declining domestic production, net oil imports are forecast by Annual Energy
Outlook 1995 to reach 58-59 percent of oil supplied in 2010.45 Because the world oil price (in 1993
dollars) is expected to rise in the EIA/DOE Reference Case about 50 percent
from 1993 to 2010 and a greater share of imports is expected to be finished
products, the value of oil imports as a share of GDP is expected to increase
from 0.7 percent in 1994 to 1.6 percent in 2010.46

* The Task Force members agreed to defer to the
significantly greater analytical resources available to the Presidential
Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Personal Motor Vehicles.
Although this group completed its work without issuing a consensus final
report, policymakers can refer to the advisory group's docket to review the
analytical work and discussion regarding the appropriate level for the
passenger-mile components of this indicator.

Context: Efficient Transportation

Reducing average greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-mile
by [x]* percent, and ton-mile by 20 percent in 2010 and by 40 percent by 2025,
while maintaining or enhancing the projected downward trend in other
pollutants.

Emissions of greenhouse gases are an important concern and
transportation emissions are growing significantly. A wide range of policies
can contribute to attaining the Task Force's indicator levels, including
increasing the energy efficiency of vehicles, encouraging use of alternative
modes of transportation, increasing vehicle occupancy or load factors, or
making use of alternative technologies and fuels. Where alternative fuels could
contribute to attaining the indicator levels, full fuel cycle impacts of
alternative technologies or fuels should be taken into account to accurately
measure their potential contributions to the target. Economic and equity
considerations should emphasize policies that enhance the affordability of and
access to transportation services.

Historical Data

Due to the combined effects of
deregulation and increased speed limits, carbon emissions from freight trucks
rose from 12 lbs per 100 ton miles in 1980 to 15 lbs per 100 ton miles in 1990.
However, recent evidence suggests emissions per ton mile will decline as excess
capacity in the industry is reduced. Carbon emissions from domestic shipping
(water) and rail freight were the same in 1980 as in 1990 (two lbs and three
lbs per 100 ton miles respectively.) (See table 4.)

Forecasts

The Annual Energy Outlook 1995
Supplement Reference Case forecasts by the year 2000, carbon emissions from
light duty vehicles will be 15 lbs per 100 passenger miles. Carbon emissions
from trucks will be 12 lbs per 100 ton miles. Emissions from both domestic
shipping and rail freight will be two lbs per 100 passenger miles each. (See
table 4.)

Because the transportation system is characterized by large
fixed investments, slow capital stock turnover and limited opportunity to alter
behavior in the short term, no indicator level has been set for the year 2000.
In particular, because automobile production plans for the year 2000 are set,
any near-term progress toward these indicator levels could only be achieved
primarily through shifts in the mode of transportation used, increased vehicle
occupancy or load factors, and perhaps increased use of alternative fuels.

There is considerably more opportunity to reduce emissions in
the next 15 years through a combination of behavioral factors and technological
market shifts, including a small penetration of "New Generation" technologies.
The Annual Energy Outlook 1994 projects that on-road vehicle
efficiencies will increase 14 percent between 1990 and 2010. 47 However,
continued erosion of occupancy or load factors may reduce the benefits from
this change. Thus, obtaining significant improvement in emissions per mile
could still require a combination of technology improvements and behavioral
shifts.

The year 2025 indicator represents a substantial penetration of
"New Generation Vehicles" in the personal transportation fleet along with other
policies that would decrease emissions in the freight sector.

Context: Traffic Congestion

Steadily decrease congestion in urban and suburban
areas.

Congestion puts a high economic burden on society--accidents,
wasted time, excessive fuel consumption, and additional pollution per mile
traveled. Further, congestion is increasing rapidly in most urban and suburban
areas. A measure commonly employed by the National Highway Administration to
gauge the driving conditions on major urban highways is the volume to capacity
ratio. Moderate congestion is defined as a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.7 or
above, with severely congested conditions defined as volume-to-capacity over
0.95 (that is bumper-to-bumper. Over 50 percent of urban highway
travel occurs in moderately congested conditions, a figure that is
projected to increase to 80 percent in 2000. Reducing the growth in
vehicle miles traveled per capita and increasing access to jobs, goods,
and services and recreation by alternatives to personal motor
transportation (the next two indicators) will probably have a significant
impact on congestion.

Historical Data

Between 1983 and 1990, the number of daily vehicle trips per household
grew from 4.1 to 4.7. The average length of these trips increased from
7.9 to 8.9 miles.50
The Roadway Congestion Index (developed by the Texas Transportation Institute
for 50 urban areas nationwide) shows that from 1982 to 1990 cities with the
greatest population density had the most congestion and the greatest increases
in congestion; 47 of the 50 cities experienced congestion increases.51 Traffic congestion in 1990 was also
measured as costing, on average, 200,000 hours of delay and $860 million in
fuel costs and delay time.52

Forecast

By 1999 at least half of vehicle miles
traveled are expected to occur in bumper-to-bumper traffic--compared to 31
percent in 1989--and almost four-fifths of urban interstate travel will be in
severely congested traffic - compared to 53 percent in 1989.53 In 1990, 11 billion hours were spent in
traffic congestion.54 While this
represents only a small fraction of the total time spent in travel, it has
significant economic impacts especially in the most congested areas.55

Context: Reducing the Need to Travel while Improving
Accessibility

Stabilize average vehicle miles traveled per capita at 1990
levels by 2010 while enhancing the desirability of alternatives
to-single-occupancy driving.

Historical Data

Average vehicle miles traveled per
capita in light duty vehicles (personal cars and trucks) rose 25 percent
between 1980 and 1991.56 The
average vehicle occupancy during all trips in 1990 was 1.6 persons. However,
occupancy was lowest (1.1) for work trips and highest (2.1) for
social/recreational trips. Occupancy rates for social/recreational trips
remained the same between 1983 and 1990 but fell from 1.3 to 1.1 persons for
home-to-work trips.57 The number
of passengers carried by the transit industry remained approximately the same
(8.5-8.6 billion) between 1980 and 1992, with small declines in bus transit and
small increases in rail transit.58

Forecasts

The Annual Energy Outlook 1995
Supplemental Reference Case forecasts a further increase of about 25 percent in
vehicle miles traveled per-capita (in light duty vehicles) between 1990 and
2010.59 The estimates are a
function of the cost of driving per mile, income per capita, ratio of female to
male vehicle miles traveled, and age distribution of the driving
population.60 The slower growth in
vehicle miles traveled relative to earlier periods occurs because of slower
growth of the driving-age population and demographic aging trends. Some have
questioned whether the increased growth in vehicle miles traveled over the past
ten years can be expected to continue and attribute the increase to relatively
faster growth in driving-age population and changes in demographic trends.

Stabilizing vehicle miles traveled could require significant
changes in land use, transportation infrastructure, mass transit, and commuting
patterns. The Task Force's indicator is very aggressive relative to current
trends, as vehicle miles traveled have been increasing by over by percent per
year and vehicle miles traveled per capita have been increasing over two
percent per year.61 Nevertheless,
recent statutes such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as well as state efforts have begun to
focus on reducing the growth in transportation demand.62 For example, the state of Oregon
requires planning in urban areas to attempt to reach goals similar to this
target. The Task Force is particularly concerned that the attainment of this
indicator be reached by providing alternatives that enhance affordable access
to jobs, services, and recreation for low income people. Alternatives to single
occupancy driving include: increasing passengers in a personal vehicle, using
public transport, trains, or planes, walking, bicycling, and other transport.

Projections of vehicle miles traveled in 2025 vary by over 50
percent, depending on demographic and other factors. Forecasts of policy
responses also vary. For example, reputable estimates of the price elasticity
of vehicle miles traveled to gasoline prices can vary substantially, depending
on the magnitude of price changes and the time horizon for behavioral and
technology adjustments.

Context: Improving Accessibility

Improve the rural and urban accessibility of jobs, markets,
services, and recreation and thereby increase the share of trips made by
alternatives to personal motor vehicles to 30 percent by 2025.

Historic Data

In 1990, 87 percent of all personal
trips were made by private vehicles, seven percent by walking, two percent by
school buses, two percent by public transportation, one percent by bicycles,
and the rest by Amtrak, planes, taxis, and other means.63 For persons who lived outside
metropolitan areas, 89.4 percent of all trips were made by personal vehicles,
0.5 percent were made by public transport, 5.6 percent were made by walking and
the rest by other means.64 In
1990, 62 percent of all trips were five miles or less. Of these, 82.8 percent
were made by private vehicles, 11.5 percent by walking, 2.6 percent by school
bus, 1.5 percent by public transport, and 1.0 percent by bicycle.65 The purposes of trips in 1990 were
family and personal (42 percent), social and recreational (25 percent), earning
a living (22 percent), civic, educational, and religious (10 percent), and
other (1 percent).66

Forecasts

The number of conventional corporate
employees who telecommute rose from 2.4 million in 1990 to 6.6 million in 1994,
according to Link Resources and Find/SVP. Find/SVP estimates that the figures
will climb to 11 million by 2000. If contract workers are included, all of
these numbers will rise by 25-30 percent.67 A 1991 Harris Poll showed that 23
percent of U.S. adults would sometimes commute to work by bicycle if safe
bicycle lanes or paths were available. Three out of six adults said they would
walk more if there were safe paths or walkways. Five percent of adults reported
walking or bicycling as their primary means of transportation; but given
adequate facilities, 13 percent would prefer to meet their transportation needs
by walking or bicycling.68 If the
United States were to make a concerted effort, it would stand a good chance of
substantially improving overall travel efficiency, and reducing the volume of
travel that would otherwise be achieved."69